Zillmere park death: Lawyers for accused killers plead their case as Girum Mekonnen trial nears end

An accused murderer searched “crime scene clean up” in the aftermath, while another accused killer described it as “an M for the Swish”, a court has heard.

Accused Kresto Wal Wal outside court

An accused murderer searched “crime scene clean up” in the aftermath, while another accused killer described it as “an M for the Swish” – which investigating police say meant “murder” and “Swish” being the alleged name for an Ipswich-based gang, a court heard.

A dozen defendants are on trial in a judge-only proceeding charged with one count of murder, nine counts of malicious acts with intent, as well as one count of assault occasioning bodily harm. Each defendant has pleaded not guilty to all 11 charges.

They are charged with the murder of Girum Mekonnen, 19, who was stabbed in O’Callaghan Park in Zillmere in Brisbane’s north around 5.30pm on September 13, 2020.

Forensic police at the scene in Zillmere in 2020

A crucial part of the prosecution’s case has been mobile phone location data and message downloads from the defendants’ phones.

Crown prosecutor Nathan Crane said in his closing argument that 28-year-old accused Joseph Lokolong Google searched on his phone the day after the incident “crime scene clean up” and “Zillmere murder scene”.

Mr Crane added that data downloaded from the phone of 22-year-old defendant Alex Edward Deng showed he sent a message using encrypted app Wickr at 11.30pm on the night of the incident saying: “Aye bruh that’s a M for the swish.”

In a later police interview, played during the trial, Mr Deng claimed he never went to Zillmere and instead stayed around the Ipswich area that day. He further denied knowing the victim, or any of the co-accused when their names were read to him during the interview.

When detectives asked co-accused Yohana Wal Wal about the “Swish” reference, he said they were “just a bunch of friends hanging out together”, denied they were “a gang” as such, and told police other people used that name to refer to Mr Wal Wal and his friends.

Mr Wal Wal’s defence barrister Chris Wilson said in his closing argument that his client was only a driver, was “nowhere near” the section of the park where the attack occurred, and Mr Wal Wal in fact “withdraws before weapons are produced”.

The victim, 19-year-old Girum Mekonnen, suffered various severe injuries in the attack, including multiple puncture wounds. (Facebook image)

Mr Lokolong’s barrister Jack Kennedy conceded his client’s phone was near the scene and he made those Google searches, but argued the Crown had not proven its case.

“The Crown case is predominantly prefaced upon circumstantial evidence,” Mr Kennedy said in closing submissions.

“There is no evidence that he had any injuries on his body after the fact, none of his clothing was seized by police nor was any of his clothing found with blood or DNA, and his DNA was not found on the deceased’s body or on any items at the park.”

Mr Kennedy argued any interested third party who had no involvement would use common search terms such as “Zillmere murder scene” to find relevant media articles.

He also expressed grave concerns about one eyewitness who testified that she saw Mr Lokolong in the park that evening, pointing to the fact that the witness said they recognised Mr Lokolong after seeing a Facebook photo.

“There is a real risk here that displacement has occurred – whereby the person she thought she saw briefly in the park wearing a mask, was replaced by the clear photograph she saw on Facebook the next day, and that was the face she identified with police. In my submission, her evidence has therefore become tainted,” Mr Kennedy told the court.

Defendant Abraham Ajang Yaak, 30, has been on bail throughout the trial.

Barristers for multiple defendants have questioned eyewitness testimonies placing their clients at the scene of the violence, arguing that their alleged identifications cannot be accepted, particularly because most of the attackers wore masks.

Barrister Malcolm Harrison, acting for 23-year-old Majok Riel Majok, echoed the closing argument of many defence counsels regarding phone location data. Mr Harrison said some alleged attackers took their phones into the area of the park where the violence unfolded, but phones belonging to other accused – including his client – never left the car they were in.

Mr Harrison went as far as saying that it was “highly unlikely” his client left his phone in the car while he went to commit the alleged violence.

The same critical questions have been echoed by multiple barristers in final arguments – what was discussed and planned in advance and who did this involve, what did each accused understand would happen in the park, and what level of violence was planned?

Defendant Malat Akoi Makuach, 25, outside Brisbane Supreme Court. He has also been on bail throughout the trial. Picture: John Gass/NCA NewsWire

Barrister April Freeman KC, representing 25-year-old defendant Malat Akoi Makuach, said in her closing argument that the prosecution conceded her client stayed in a car in nearby Birdwood Street and did not make the short walk to the park or partake in any violence.

“Can your honour be satisfied that he had the requisite knowledge of any common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose, so much so that your honour could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he was a party to that common purpose and is therefore criminally responsible for the events in the park?” she posed.

Despite multiple defendants’ fingerprints being found on the three cars allegedly used to transport the attackers from Ipswich to Zillmere, defence barristers argued during the trial that their clients’ were in those cars hours or days earlier and they regularly got lifts to basketball games, for example, in those cars. Fingerprints cannot be dated.

Defendant Kresto Wal Wal outside Brisbane Supreme Court. His barrister Scott Lynch is expected to outline his client’s case in full on Monday. Picture: Tertius Pickard/NCA NewsWire

As the trial enters its fourth week – having started on Tuesday, November 12 – there are only closing arguments from three defence barristers left to be heard – those representing Kresto Wal Wal, Gabreal Wal Wal, and Santo Wal.

The accused are Mr Deng, Mr Lokolong, Ben Abio, 23, Majok Riel Majok, 23, Yohana Wal Wal, 23, Malat Akoi Makuach, 25, Juma Makuol Deng Makuol, 27, Chan Kuchmol Kon, 28, Kresto Wal Wal, 28, Abraham Ajang Yaak, 30, Gabreal Wal Wal, 31, and Santo Wal, 36.

The trial is expected to conclude on Monday afternoon, and Justice Lincoln Crowley is then set to begin his considerations on verdicts. It is not known when he will deliver his verdicts, with the very real possibility that it could be next year.